Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 919 F.2d 286 - United States v. Cockerham

United States v. Cockerham’s Empirical Analysis

919 F.2d 285 · 1990

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably United States v. Calverley (1994), United States v. McCaskey (1993)

46 federal appellate · 2 district ·

500199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3662 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742

Relies on Hughey v. United States · Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Cos. · United States v. Mocciola · United States v. Fry · United States v. Silverman

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “means the value of the property taken, damaged, or destroyed.... Examples: (1) In the case of a theft of a check or money order, the loss is the loss that would have occurred if the check or money order had been cashed. 26 Id., comment. (n.2). This definition of loss is incorporated into section 2F1.1 with certain exceptions for types of fraudulent conduct not relevant to this case. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.7). Because the guidelines define”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Upon review of the record, we determine that Cockerham’s objections were sufficient to require adherence to the [Rule of Criminal Procedure governing restitution] and the VWPA. [fn 1.]” Although that statement does not by itself help, the footnote’s parentheticals for two cases are more significant:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]ssues raised for the first time on appeal 'are not reviewable by this Court unless they involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.